Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kapkan4u who wrote (63222)	6/24/1999 5:07:00 PM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572124

Did anyone say it was an optical shrink? I assumed a fresh redesign because of the copper.

To: kapkan4u who wrote (63222)	6/24/1999 5:33:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 1572124

<how can they go from 184 mm2 to 104 mm2 with an optical shrink for the K7 if they stay with 6 metal?> Why do you have a concern here? For fully scaled linear shrink of 41% the area must be 184/2=92mm2. However, the C4 bumps do not scale at the same rate, therefore there must be some increase from the 92mm, with some re-layout of the top layer. Am I missing something here?

To: kapkan4u who wrote (63222)	6/24/1999 7:58:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572124

Kapkan - <I don't see how can they go from 184 mm2 to 104 mm2 with an optical shrink for the K7 if they stay with 6 metal?> Easy. It's not an optical shrink if the die size shrinks. For an optical shrink from a previous generation, the die size remains the same, with a bunch of dead area around the periphery of the die. It's got to be a bona fide design shrink. They could still stay with 6 layer metal, especially since they are going to Cu. Could be seven, but my guess is six, and I stress this is a guess. PB